Participatory irrigation management (PIM) in Turkey: a case study in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project Yazar A. in

(1)

Yazar A.

in

Hamdy A. (ed.), Lacirignola C. (ed.), Lamaddalena N. (ed.).

Water valuation and cost recovery mechanisms in the developing countries of the Mediterranean region

Bari : CIHEAM

Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 49 2002

pages 191-210

Article available on lin e / Article dispon ible en lign e à l’adresse :

--- http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?ID PD F=2001541

--- To cite th is article / Pou r citer cet article

--- Yazar A. Participatory irrigation man agemen t ( PIM) in Tu rkey: a case stu dy in th e Lower Seyh an Irrigation Project. In : Hamdy A. (ed.), Lacirignola C. (ed.), Lamaddalena N. (ed.). Water valuation and cost recovery mechanisms in the developing countries of the Mediterranean region. Bari : CIHEAM, 2002. p. 191-210 (Options Méditerranéennes : Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens; n. 49) ---

http://www.ciheam.org/

http://om.ciheam.org/

(2)

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Turkey:

a Case Study in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project

Attila Yazar1

A

BSTRACT

Turkey began an accelerated program of transferring management responsibility for large irrigation systems to locally controlled organizations in 1993. Within 3 year, the national irrigation agency, State Hydraulic Works (DSI), had succeeded in transferring nearly one million hectares, or 61 % of the publicly-managed irrigation in the country, to local government units or to special-purpose Irrigation Associations (IAs) created at the local level.

Important motives driving this fast-paced implementation were (a) rapidly escalating labor costs, (b) a hiring freeze on government agencies, and (c) consequent concern over the agency's ability to operate and maintain systems serving the expanding irrigated area for which it was responsible.

Initial results of the transfer included a doubling of irrigation fee collection rates and shifting of O&M expenditures from the public to the private sector, an accumulation of reserves in some Irrigation Associations (IAs) for future capital purchases, a reduced wage bill for system O&M personnel.

This study analyzes the impact of management turnover on irrigation management and irrigated agriculture in selected IAs in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project in Adana, Turkey.

Introduction

Since 1954 Turkey has had a legal framework allowing the transfer of management proceeded at a very modes pace until 1993, when the program received new impetus and the rate of transfers accelerated sharply. The World Bank played an important catalytic role in this acceleration and since that time, the program has successfully transferred about one million hectares to local management (Sevendsen et al., 1998).

1Çukurova University, Irrigation and Agricultural Structures Department, Adana-Turkey

Options Méditerranéennes, Série A n.49

(3)

Turkey began an accelerated program of transferring management responsibility for large irrigation systems to locally controlled organizations in 1993. Within 3 year, the national irrigation agency, DSI, had succeeded in transferring nearly one million hectares, or 61 % of the publicly-managed irrigation in the country, to local government units or to special-purpose Irrigation Associations (IAs) created at the local level.

Important motives driving this fast-paced implementation were (a) rapidly escalating labor costs, (b) a hiring freeze on government agencies, and (c) consequent concern over the agency's ability to operate and maintain systems serving the expanding irrigated area for which it was responsible.

The transfer program was undertaken entirely with existing DSI staff, and was implemented in the field by regional DSI O&M Division personnel. Extensive training and orientation programs were held to acquaint field personnel with the program and approach to be used. A defining feature of the program was the approach of initiating action through existing local government structures and leaders rather than through a campaign of grass-roots organization of farmers. In this respect it differs sharply from many of the management transfer effort which preceded it, especially those applied in Southeast and South Asia (Sevendsen and Nott, 1998).

Initial results of the transfer included a doubling of irrigation fee collection rates and shifting of O&M expenditures from the public to the private sector, an accumulation of reserves in some Irrigation Associations (IAs) for future capital purchases, a reduced wage bill for system O&M personnel, and indications of expansions of irrigated area in some transferred schemes. DSI personnel levels have been strongly resistant to reduction, even with the diminished need for staff as a result of the transfer program, limiting the actual cost savings to the government. There are indications, however, that O&M staff levels are beginning to decline, and significant financial savings by the government may lie ahead. The number of farmer complaints filed by DSI has fallen dramatically in wake of the transfer program. Although it is not known if the number of total complaints has declined, complaints are being handled at a local level rather than by higher level offices of DSI. The transfer program in Turkey is still young and time is required before its true impacts will be known (Svendsen and Nott, 1998).

Second-generation problems and challenges are emerging, though, in the wake of the early successes of this initiative. These can be categorized in terms of the party on which they have their primary effect. Challenges for DSI include (1) the difficulty in reducing overall staff levels in general, and

(4)

O&M staff levels in particular, following transfer, (2) the absence of a charging mechanism for bulk water supply to IAs, and the consequent absence of an economic restraint on demands for water and (3) the indistinct vision of a new role for the agency in supporting existing irrigation in the post-transfer era (Svendsen and Nott, 1998).

Emerging problems for IAs include (1) the undefined nature of water rights in Turkey, and the consequent insecurity of their claim on irrigation water, (2) restricted options for obtaining heavy maintenance equipment, (3) the lack of a legal basis for forming federations for IAs for joint purchasing and supplying “lumpy” services such as equipment maintenance, (4) the lack of a clear de facto policy on capital cost sharing for rehabilitation (and new system construction), (5) the need to increase direct farmer participation in IA governance and reduce dependence on village and municipal leaders in filling IA leadership roles, and (6) weak support service systems for IAs in some areas and regions (Svendsen and Nott, 1998).

This study analyzes the impact of management turnover on irrigation management and irrigated agriculture in selected IAs in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project in Adana. Impacts measured include costs of irrigation to the government and the farmers, quality of irrigation operations and maintenance, agricultural productivity, financial and economic viability of irrigation systems, and social implications of management turnover.

Participatory irrigation management in Turkey

In Turkey, like all over the world, there is two way to operate the irrigation schemes developed by Government;

1. Irrigation management by the Government

2. Irrigation management by local authorities and Water Users Organization (WUOs).

Irrigation management by the Government was the preferred model till the near past. At the beginning of 1960s some small scale irrigation projects, which were isolated and far from the O&M units of the State Hyraulic Work (DSI) had initially transferred to users with in the different approach from the Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) concept we perceived today. However these studies, that even if they were at a slow pace, gave great contribution to be set up PIM concept. Besides this, major contribution has been provided by the Water User Groups (WUGs) which have actively participated since the same years. Before the accelerated transfer program was commenced, WUGs had been working at DSI

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Turkey:

a Case Study in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project

Options Méditerranéennes, Série A n.49 193

(5)

managed irrigation schemes which was accounted for 40 % of command area (Unal et al., 1998).

The main underlying reason for accelerating transfer program has been the O&M financial burden for DSI and the Government, which was getting unbearable and unsustainable. The O&M cost recovery (rate of collection of water fees), has been unsaticfactory (about 41%). Considerable increase in the cost of O&M due to the role of unionized labor further aggravated the sitution. The present Government's general policy of promoting privatization was also a contributing factor. Positive results from generally satisfactory O&M of transferred schemes was another important contributing factor, which substantially alleviated the concern that the systems will rapidly deteriorate after transfer (Unal et al., 1998).

A pilot program of accelerated transfer was commenced to promote accelerated transfer for the Directorates of Antalya, Adana, Konya and Izmir in Turkey, where DSI officials had shown a higher level of preparation and dedication and farmers were more receptive, considerable internal training, including seminars and workshops significantly contributed to the process. A friendly competition among various regions in promoting successful transfer is another contributing factor. The policy that O&M engineers will not loose their jobs as a result of transfer and knowing that they will play important role after transfer, kept their moral high and promoter's role was played entirely by DSI engineers who interacted very closely with the village and municipality councils and chairmen (Unal et al., 1998).

As of end of 1997, a total of 4.05 million ha (net) have been equipped with irrigation infrastructure in Turkey. Of this, DSI has developed 1.74 million ha, mainly under large schemes, General Directorate of Rural Service (GDRS) has developed 0.92 million ha as minor schemes, DSI and GDRS have jointly developed 0.32 million ha served from grounwater supply, and farmers individually have developed 1.07 million ha. As of end of 1997, DSI has transferred about 1.28 million ha area which corresponds to 74 % of the total area (1.74 million ha) developed by itself. That figure reached 1.42 million ha at the end of July 1998(Unal et al., 1998).

Tekinel and Aksu (1999) provided a discussion on PIM practices in Turkey. In this paper titled as “Participatory Approach in Planning and Management of Irrigation Schemes” they explained Turkish experiences with users' participation and the full transfer of irrigation systems to user and highlighted the recent achievements of the State Hyraulics Works (DSI) since 1993 in the process of transfer of irrigation systems to users and pursuing a plan to be completed the transfer of a total area of

(6)

approximately 2.5 millions ha by the end of the year 2 000. Beyond all expectations, DSI has shown a remarkable success and has transferred areas, which have already reached over 1 483 931 ha at the beginning of January 1999. Transfer of irrigation systems to users was started at a slow pace in the early 1950s and until 1993, small schemes were gradually transferred to users every year with an annual average total area of about 2 000 ha. DSI was also encouraging participatory approach through establishing Irrigation Groups (IGs) or Water Users Groups (WUGs) with limited responsibility for O&M. Considerable increase in the cost of O&M due to the role of ununionized labor further aggravated the situation. The general policy of the present Government for promoting privatization is also a contributing factor and the positive results of transferred schemes with generally satisfactory O&M encourage future schemes.

Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer

The principal reason for promoting transfer programs is to reduce the cost of irrigation management for the government. There is little evidence however, to suggest that irrigation management transfer policies affect overall government expenditure in the water or agriculture sectors of developing countries. Consequently there needs to be a more detailed examination of the sector-level impacts of transfer policies to ascertain if transfer actually reduces the cost of irrigation to the government (Vermillion, 1997).

Where significant government subsidies existed before transfer, increases in the cost of irrigation to farmers are recorded after transfer.

Following transfer, there are usually reductions in the numbers of government irrigation agency staff at system and administrative levels. The preferred method of reducing staff is to wait until employees retire. When governments reduce staff at the same time as transfer, staff may be released or relocated to other government system.

No time series trend analyses or simple “before and after“ comparisons of fee collection rates following transfer can be found in the literature. In the few instances where fee collection studies are recorded, substantial increases -over 50 percent- in water fee collection rates are reported (Vermillion, 1997; Tekinel et al., 1999; Unal et al., 1998).

Institutional Framework for Irrigation in Turkey

The institutional framework for Government and other public responsibility for irrigation and drainage is summarized below:

(7)

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA)

According to the establishment law and subsequent revisions

,

the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is responsible for the development of agriculture, stockbreeding, various socioeconomic services and the establishment of certain sub-surface facilities, within rural development plans.

The major responsibilities covered in the laws concerned are related to the promotion, completion, input supply and the extension of all aspects of agriculture including irrigation and drainage, operation and maintenance of irrigation projects for the farmers.

General Directorate of Rural Services (GDRS)

The General Directorate of Rural Service (GDRS) was establishment in 1984 by incorporating the following existing organizations: the Soil Conservation and Irrigation Organization (TOPRAKSU), the Rural Settlement Organization, the Rural Roads and Water and Electricity. New laws are urgently required, especially in relation to on-farm development (land consolidation included).

State Hydraulic Works (DSI)

The law establishment DSI (Law no 6200) and subsequent amendments include a number of items relevant to the panning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems. While the legal basis for the O&M and On-farm Development activities needs to be better defined and perhaps broadened. Existing laws appear to provide enough power for the Authorities to take action in cases such as formation of Irrigation Associations (IAs), protecting from damaging of DSI systems and etc.

The General Directorate of Agricultural Reform (GDAR)

The General Directorate of Agricultural Reform, which is a General Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs is involved indirectly in irrigation and drainage. Its main responsibilities are:

! Determining the priority areas for the land after detail investigations and surveys,

! In the land reforms areas, to distribute registered land to farmers in need under the Government authority, not required for public services,

(8)

! To provide the equipment, support and training for these farmers and encourage them to establish farmers organizations,

! To consolidate the land into more economic units (Tekinel and Aksu, 1999).

Forms of Organizations for Transfer of Irrigation Projects

DSI's transfer program is based on shifting O&M responsibilities to local administrations, to Irrigation Associations which are based on local administrations, and, occasionally, to cooperatives. Irrigation Associations differ from villages and municipalities, though, in that the IA constitutes a new institution with a legal personality that is distinct from any existing government body.

Transfer to Village Organization

This is a form of transfer where the irrigation scheme serves only a single village:Village Head (Muhtar) is the natural chairman of this organization and the transfer agreement is undersigned by DSI and Muhtar and submitted to the Minister of Public Works and Settlement for approval.

Transfer to Municipal Organization

This is form of transfer where the irrigation scheme serves only a single municipal unit. In this organization Mayor is the natural charman of the IA and the agrement of transfer is undersigned by DSI and Mayor and submitted to the Minister and Public Works and Settlement for the approval.

Transfer to Irrigation Association

An irrigation scheme can be transfer to an Irrigation Association where there are more than one local administrative units (village, legal entities, municipalities) within one irrigation scheme.These Irrigation Associations are established under a state which has to be approved by the Council Of Ministers. For large areas, this is considered to be the most appropriate organization.

Transfer to Cooperatives

These organizations are established under the Cooperatives Law and it is mandatory that a legal cooperative to be formed at the request of a minimum of 15 farmers before a scheme is undertaken.

(9)

Description of Irrigation Associations in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project

The project is located in the Mediterrenean Region in the south of Turkey. The area is bounded by the Ceyhan River on the east, Berdan River on the West, The Taurus Mountains on the north (limited by the 61-m countour line) and by the Mediterrenean sea on the south. The plain is divided into two sections by the Seyhan River, the western part is called as Tarsus Plain, the eastern part is called as Yuregir Plain.

Most of Irrigation Associations (IAs) were set up in 1994. Other Irrigation Associations completed their establishment in 1995 and 1996.

Command area of IAs varied from 1864 ha to 16890 ha. The number of farmers varied from 205 to 4149. The number of plots ranged from 348 to 9805. Table 1 summarizes description of Irrigation Associations in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project.

Operation and Maintenance by Irrigation Associations

Association operations practices are largely variations of the practices employed by DSI prior to transfer. Operations begins with the list of water users in the unit, which was supplied by DSI at the time of transfer. In May or June of each year, farmers fill out water demand forms for the coming season, which show the area to be irrigated, the crop to be grown, and the name of the farmer. The farmer must countersign this form and is given a copy as a receipt. In the IA office, these are consolidated into a billing record for the season. If there are several IA units sharing a water source, DSI will usually call a meeting of all involved IAs in the spring.

At present, operating responsibilities in virtually all larger schemes are shared between DSI and IAs. DSI operates all dams and barrages and the supply canals which serve several different IA units. They take the lead in planning, with IAs, the irrigation calendar for the year. They measure flows at major diversion points under their control and solicit monitoring information from the IAs at the close of the season. DSI also operates any drainage pumping works which may be present in the scheme, both vertical and horizontal drainage. For their part, IAs schedule and deliver water to water users within their service units, collect monitoring information for their own purposes and as requested by DSI, monitor water deliveries day and night, and resolve disputes.

(10)

Table 1.Description of Irrigation Associations in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project

Name of IA

Establishment Year

Main Canal

Irrigation Area(ha)

Number of Municipalities

Number of IA council

Number of Farmers

Number of Plots

Cumhuriyet 1994 YSO-8 2655 5 17 795 1277

K.Yüregir 1994 YS1 4860 9 35 1290 1362

Akarsu 1994 YS2 8943 10 51 2423 1359

Cotlu 1994 YS4 2425 9 29 820 399

G. Yuregir 1994 YS3-YS5 16890 23 69 1812 3776

Gokova 1994 YS6 4289 10 30 540 913

Gazi 1994 YS7 6394 13 39 600 1154

Kadikoy 1994 YS8 9808 19 57 913 1571

Yenigok 1994 YS9 1864 7 21 205 348

Toroslar 1995 TS1-TS2 13700 22 56 4149 9805

Yesilova 1994 TS3 3740 4 20 427 680

Cukurova 1996 TS3 6847 12 83 1701 3113

Y. Seyhan 1996 TS3 4895 8 34 723 1554

Seyhan 1994 TS3 3610 7 19 626 872

Altinova 1995 TS5 6150 10 27 684 1147

Pamukova 1995 TS6-TS7 12037 18 51 2044 4862

Onkoy 1994 TS8-TS10 11983 10 36 1667 2790

Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Turkey:a Case Study in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project

199Options Méditerranéennes, Série A n.49

(11)

Routine maintenance and repair is carried out in the spring, prior to the start of the irrigating season. Included in maintenance are cleaning of canals, canalets, and syphons; replacement of broken canalet sections;

repairing cracks in canal linings; clearing grass and weeds; grading roads;

and repairing and maintaining gates.During the transition phase, there is a gradual shift in responsibility from DSI to the IA, with the pace dependent on the rapidity with which the IA develops the capacity to carry out various maintenance tasks. Capacity is, in turn, dependent on employment of technical staff, staff training, acquiring equipment, and generating financial resources to cover variable maintenance costs.

These shifting responsibilities are best described in terms of scheme levels. During the first post-transfer year, an IA typically takes on responsibility for cleaning secondary and tertiary lined and unlined canals, canalets, syphons, and drains within the IA unit; cutting grass and weeds; and repairing minor cracks in canal linings. DSI maintains water storage and diversion structures, shared main canals and main drains, and repairs all levels of canalets. During the second year, the IA may assume limited responsibility for canalet repair, perhaps using DSI machinery while supplying labor and fuel. As an IA acquires lifting and transport equipment of its own, more canalet repair responsibility will devolve to the IA, until transfer of maintenance and repair responsibility within the IA unit is complete.

Finances

Data on the finances of 17 IAs in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project was obtained from monitoring reports for 1998 prepared for the DSI O&M Department. This data provide useful insights into the way IAs are managing their finances. Irrigation Associations (IAs) obtain income from six main sources. These are given as follows:1) Irrigation fees, 2) Membership fees, 3) Revenues from the supply of goods and services such as contract machinery hire, 4) Fines, 5) Interest revenue, 6) Donations.

Setting and collecting fees

In the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project, water charges are based on the type of crop grown and area to be irrigated. This practice also encourages farmers to over irrigate their fields. If water taxes are charged to farmers on the basis of volume of water used, then farmers would have been very careful about not using excess amount of water. However, structures exist at farm outlets on tertiary canals.

IAs have adopted an improved version of the previously used system, by DSI with different fee rates charged for different crops or groups of

(12)

crops. Rates are set annually at a general assembly meeting held in May or June for the current irrigation season. Prior to the meeting, the chairman and the executive committee prepare a proposed set of fees, based on expected expenditures, which is presented to the general assembly for its approval. This proposal is developed in consultation with DSI staff.

Irrigation fees ranges from 14 000 000 TL to 40 000 000 TL per hectare in most of the IAs except Cumhuriyet IA. In Cumhuriyet IA, due to the pumped irrigation, irrigation water fees are set higher than those in other IAs.In additional the average fee assessment per hectare for selected IAs from 1998 to 1999 are given in table 3. The weighted average fee assessment per hectare irrigated ranged for TL 8,819 million (US$ 33,91) and TL 33,586 (US$ 80,43).

In DSI-managed schemes, the first installment of fees are due on the first in March, 19 months after the harvest for which the fees have been assessed. The second installment is due 2 months later. Payments not received by that date are subject to a once-of penalty of 10 percent of the fees due. Fees are collected by Ministry of Finance collection agents attached to DSI's regional offices.

IA have generally been significantly more stringent in setting payment timetables, in their insistence on payment, and in charging substantive penalties for late payment. Timetables set by IA vary widely, from requiring full payment before the first irrigation, to payment in two or three installments during the course of the irrigation season, to payment within 3 or 4 months of harvest. Some IAs say that they will refuse water delivery to anyone who has not paid their fees.

Others say they will continue to supply water but will pursue payment in court if necessary. A number of court cases against non-payers have already been brought by IAs. All IAs charge a penalty for late payment of 10 percent per month (not compounded) which generally matches or exceeds the rate of consumer price inflation.

The determination of fees due is made by first preparing a map of all the irrigated parcels in the schemes and then registering the name of the irrigator (owner or tenant), the area, and the crop for each parcel. Prior to the beginning of the irrigation season, farmers fill out a demand form (also called an irrigator information form) giving details about their planned cropping pattern, area to be irrigated, and location within the channel system. During the season, farmers submit irrigation request slips indicating when they would like water to be delivered and for what area and crop. These forms and slips are used for scheduling water deliveries and for creating a record of irrigators who are liable to pay irrigation fees.

(13)

Name of IA Irrigated Area (ha)

T.Fee Assess.

Mil. TL

A.Fee Assess.

Mil.TL/ha

A.Fee Assess US$/ha

Irrigated Area (ha)

T.Fee Assess.

Mil. TL

A. Fee Assess.

Mil. TL/ha

A. Fee Assess.

US$/ha

Cumhuriyet 2030 36000 17,734 68,20 1812 45000 24,834 59,47

K. Yuregir 3635 42000 11,554 44,43 3278 69000 21,049 50,41

Akarsu 8031 83000 10,335 39,74 7062 109000 15,435 36,96

Cotlu 1900 39000 20,526 78,93 1846 62000 33,586 80,43

G. Yuregir 16480 165000 10,012 38,50 14595 228000 15,622 37,41

Gokova 4366 46000 10,536 40,52 4081 54000 13,232 31,69

Gazi 5694 65000 11,416 43,90 5606 86000 15,341 36,74

Kadikoy 9045 87000 9,619 36,99 8536 121000 14,175 33,95

Yenigok 1846 53000 28,711 110,41 1681 43000 25,580 61,26

Toroslar 13903 146000 10,501 40,38 12727 239000 18,779 44,97

Yesilova 2889 32000 11,076 42,59 2415 46000 19,048 45,61

Çukurova 5591 52000 9,301 35,77 5554 101000 18,185 43,55

Y. Seyhan 4151 40000 9,636 37,06 3722 62000 16,658 39,89

Seyhan 3307 32000 9,676 37,21 3112 49000 15,746 37,71

Altinova 5307 49000 9,233 35,51 5068 73000 14,404 34,49

Pamukova 11566 102000 8,819 33,91 10342 144000 13,924 33,34

Tarsus Onkoy 9364 95000 10,145 39,01 8358 124000 14,836 35,53

NOTE : TL Indicates Turkish Lira ; Exchange Rate : US$ 1.00 = TL 260 039 (for 1998) ; US$ 1.00 = TL 417 580 (for 1999)

Options Méditerranéennes, Série A n.49

(14)

Fee collection may take place in the village, with IA staff making a collection round at the time payments are due, or at the IA office. All payments are in cash (as opposed to collection in-kind). Sheets listing the amount due from each irrigator are posted in commonly frequented meeting places such as coffee houses and mosques.

Expenditure Patterns Across IAs

Recurrent expenditures are reported on the O&M monitoring forms used by DSI under headings for personnel, machinery and equipment, maintenance and repair, taxes and other. Table 4 shows distribution of capital and operating costs for selected Irrigation Associations, in 1999. Of total expenditures, the largest share went toward personnel (46,4 percent) and (19 percent ) are allocated for maintenance and repair. Table 4 shows the allocation of O&M expenditures for selected Irrigation Associations in 1999 of the total maintenance and repair cost 36,5 percent are for concrete repairs, with the next two most important categories being cleaning (34 percent) and service road repair (13,8 percent). Irrigation Associations should allocate 40 % of their annual budget for repair and maintenance; 30 % of it for personnel expenditures. In table 4, an average of 46.4 % of their budget were spend for personnel, and 19 % for repair and maintenance. Thus, budget allocated for repair and maintenance was well below that should be allcated (40 % ). The reason for this could be the number of personnel hired by IAs were higher than required. Political desicions are also effective in this situation.

Results of Irrigation Management Transfer O&M Costs

Operation and maintenance expenditures insured by State Hydraulic Works (DSI) were subject to repayment in accordance with its Establishment Law (No : 6200). Complying with this law, repayment schedules are prepared by DSI. In principle, O&M charges were set by DSI.

For a given year the payment consists of 100 % of actual O&M costs of previous year (not indexed to inflation). Water rates were charged on cropped-area basis (with different rates). O&M costs and collection rate of water charges by DSI prior to transfer are shown in Table 5. As shown in table, the actual amount collected falls far short of the asseessed amount.

This was due to the inadequate penalty for late payment. Recently, amendments have been proposed to the Establishment Law in relation to

(15)

Name of IA Personnel Energy

Equip. Operation Repair Equipmen Vehicle

Machine Taxes Other Total

Cumhuriyet 16360 6250 2641 540 4610 829 - - - 27 31257

K. Yuregir 39180 - 7409 3230 5313 - - - - 2460 57592

Akarsu 53484 53484 13143 4155 13674 29 - - 550 - 138519

Cotlu 20610 - 2278 4491 2798 - 1163 - - 3022 34362

G. Yuregir 90400 - 9581 141 36250 461 - 75000 - - 211833

Gokova 25222 - 5000 3850 13898 5750 - - - - 53720

Gazi 35283 - 10672 2082 10398 852 - 13150 - 7258 79695

Kadikoy 59262 - 9178 3206 26162 3726 - - 190 5149 106873

Yenigok 20621 - 1811 1365 4868 - - - - 2626 31291

Toroslar 100717 5269 34494 7363 33685 122 - - - 5220 186870

Yesilova 29659 1075 2029 1867 7316 1234 - - 144 395 43719

Çukurova 51908 450 27650 1725 92355 2090 7300 1300 1008 8540 194326

Y. Seyhan 23670 - 6966 2482 8320 320 1480 51175 3600 3000 101013

Seyhan 24013 100 62560 6028 8537 66 5669 - - - 106973

Altinova 33260 - 3668 1350 4663 250 - - 1400 44591

Pamukova 72745 - 19600 2500 21672 52 - - - 8 116577

Onkoy 69549 3605 13804 2976 18866 236 - 787 1219 111042

Total 765943 70233 232484 49351 313385 16017 15612 140625 6279 40324 1650253

Share (%) 46,4 4,3 14,1 3,0 19,0 1,0 0,9 8,5 0,4 2,4 100,0

Options Méditerranéennes, Série A n.49

(16)

late payment of water charges. Political and administrative factors have contributed to government O&M fee collection rates average only 37,6 % between 1989 and 1994 in table 5.

Irrigation Association (IA) O&M fee collection takes place against a background of government laxness in the pursuit of irrigation fees. Thus, O&M fee collection rates for selected Irrigation Associations (IAs) averaged 85.6 % between 1994 and 1998 as shown in table 5. The numbers over 100 %, includes penalties for late payment of irrigation fee are monthly 10 % penalty is applied for the late payments. IAs are established according to Municipality law (Number :1580, article 133 and 148), Village Law (Number : 442, article 47 and 48 ) and Provincial Administration Law (Number : 5442, article 56). So that all IAs, charge a penalty for late payment of 10 percent per month, generally matches or exceeds the rate of consumer price inflation.

Table 5.O&M Cost Recovery for DSI-Operated Systems, (in thousand Turkish Lira )

Year Collectable Collected Collection

Percentage (%)

1989 44181 16964 38,4

1990 65786 24276 36,9

1991 109408 35860 32,8

1992 175676 58319 33,2

1993 255342 107295 42,0

1994 435598 183280 42,1

Average 37,6

Irrigation Performance

Irrigation ratio is defined as the ratio of actually irrigated area to command area in each IA. The lowest irrigation ratio is 48,8 percent in Tarsus Onköy IA and the highest irrigation ratio is 98 percent in Gökova IA in 1996. Also, in 1997, irrigation ratios changed between 68,5 and 93,9 percent. Irrigation ratios varied from the lowest ratio of 74,8 % to the highest ratio 101,8 % in 1998. Irrigation ratios ranged from 64,6 % to 95,2 % in 1999. Last year, the lowest irrigation ratio was 50,3 % and the highest one was 97 % (Table 6 and 7).

(17)

Cropping Patterns

Crops grown under DSI developed irrigation in Turkey are dominated by cotton, cereals, maize, and sugar beets, which together comprise nearly two- thirds of the mix. Table 9 shows average cropping pattern in DSI irrigation schemes, 1991-1995.

Name of IA Irrigation

Area(ha) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

AIA (ha)

IR (%)

AIA (ha)

IR (%)

AIA (ha)

IR (%)

AIA (ha)

IR (%)

AIA (ha)

IR (%) Cumhuriyet 2655 1471 55,4 1819 68,5 2030 76,5 1812 68,2 1874 70,6 K. Yuregir 4860 3750,5 77,2 4129 85,0 3635 74,8 3278 67,4 3365 69,2 Akarsu 8943 8141 91,0 8015 89,6 8031 89,8 7062 79,0 6631 74,1 Cotlu 2425 2128 87,8 2092 86,3 1900 78,4 1846 76,1 1698 70,0 G. Yuregir 16890 14683 86,9 15402 91,2 16480 97,6 14595 86,4 14914 88,3 Gokova 4289 4205 98,0 4009 93,5 4366 101,8 4081 95,2 3834 89,4 Gazi 6394 5813,3 90,9 5749 89,9 5694 89,1 5606 87,7 5648 88,3 Kadikoy 9808 9118 93,0 8954 91,3 9045 92,2 8536 87,0 8273 84,3 Yenigok 1864 1774,5 95,2 1751 93,9 1846 99,0 1681 90,2 1821 97,7 Toroslar 13700 12894 94,1 10486 76,5 13903 101,5 12727 92,9 6893 50,3 Yesilova 3740 2666 71,3 2786,9 74,5 2889 77,2 2415 64,6 2599 69,5 Çukurova 6847 5848,9 85,4 5887,9 86,0 5591 81,7 5554 81,1 5601 81,8 Y. Seyhan 4895 4221,7 86,2 3988,6 81,5 4151 84,8 3722 76,0 3613 73,8 Seyhan 3610 3199,9 88,6 3272 90,6 3307 91,6 3112 86,2 3042 84,3 Altinova 6150 5431 88,3 5219,5 84,9 5307 86,3 5068 82,4 5178 84,2 Pamukova 12037 10555 87,7 10736,4 89,2 11566 96,1 10342 85,9 10498 87,2 Onköy 11983 5849 48,8 11026,9 92,0 9364 78,1 8358 69,7 7929 66,2

Table 6.Irrigated Area and Irrigation Ratio, by years

AIA : Actually irrigated area ; IR : Irrigation ratio

SOURCE : The Lower Seyhan Irrigation Associations Data, 2000

Table 7. Irrigation Performance in the Selected IAs for 1999

SOURCE : The Lower Seyhan Irrigations Associations Data, 2000

Name of IA Irr. Eff (%) Req.Ratio N.I.R* G.I.R* W.S.I*

Cumhuriyet 35.6 1.55 9.494 17.184 26.657

Kuzey Yuregir 47 1.18 20.552 37.199 44.031

Yuregir Akarsu 49 1.12 37.651 68.147 76.719

Cotlu 43.8 1.26 10.009 18.115 22.846

Guney Yuregir 36.1 1.53 95.104 172.134 263.575

Gokova 45 1.23 20.180 36.530 44.821

Gazi 29.7 1.85 36.608 66.259 123.189

Kadikoy 55 1.01 54.074 97.871 98.918

Yenigok 53 1.04 21.170 38.317 39.893

(18)

In the cropping pattern prior to turnover of management to IAs, maize and cotton were two major crops grown in the LSP area. Percentages of each crop changes due to price and marketing conditions.

Table 8.Irrigated Areas and Cropping Pattern in DSI Area Between 1991-1995 Area planted (ha) Cropping pattern (%) Type of Crop

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Soybean 27528 18264 18274 25821 26752 13 7 8 16 11

Melons 16421 13719 4605 6866 9235 8 6 2 4 4

Cotton 52215 53874 26716 344586 87906 24 22 11 21 36

Peanut 8236 6776 6951 8326 11518 4 3 3 5 5

Maize 61031 77112 121770 50696 62309 29 31 51 30 26 Vegatables 10646 10724 10215 7082 8758 5 4 4 4 3 Citrus 16998 17558 18607 18311 22230 7 7 8 11 9 Other 20262 46936 29930 13893 15727 10 20 13 9 6 Total 213337 244963 237068 165581 244435 100 100 100 100 100

Years 1998 1999

Name of IA Collectable Fee Collected

Collection Percentage (%)

Collectable Fee Collected

Collection Percentage (%)

Cumhur 36683 28769 78,4 45407 38242 84,2

K. Yuregir 52217 34422 65,9 68761 42847 62,3

Akarsu 84592 65601 77,5 109427 76626 70,0

Cotlu 29877 22255 74,5 61631 33044 53,6

G. Yuregir 165715 86469 52,2 228534 186000 81,4

Gokova 46454 36167 77,9 53777 54984 102,2

Gazi 64946 57260 88,2 86150 76571 88,9

Kadikoy 85109 65278 76,7 121262 102254 84,3

Yenigok 25499 41438 162,5 42513 79140 186,2

Toroslar 106214 123923 116,7 239145 186433 78,0

Yesilova 31434 24708 78,6 46500 40620 87,4

Çukurova 48395 74574 154,1 101000 83386 82,6 Y. Seyhan 38703 34720 89,7 61706 54087 87,7

Seyhan 32036 25792 80,5 49150 37201 75,7

Altinova 48684 46499 95,5 73378 71991 98,1

Pamukova 105533 88700 84,0 144469 95079 65,8

Onkoy 80432 69182 86,0 155000 95364 61,5

Average 90,5 85,3

Table 9. Fee Collection Rates for Selected IAs by Years

NOTE : TL Indicates Turkish Lira ; Exchange Rate : US$ 1.00 = TL 81 137 (for 1996)

US$ 1.00 = TL 151 428 (for 1997) ; US$ 1.00 = TL 260 039 (for 1998); US$ 1.00 = TL 417 580 (for 1999) Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Turkey:

(19)

Summary and conclusion

Some outcomes of the transfer program are evident at this early stage, while others will not be assessable yet for several years. Public costs of O&M have begun to fall and will very likely continue to do so over the next few years. Private costs have increased and will likely continue to increase as more and more responsibility is transferred to local agencies.

Cost recovery has improved dramatically. DSI O&M staff levels have fallen marginally, though more dramatic declines will depend on resolving issues of transfer and termination with the powerful unions representing DSI support staff. Associations have gained control over many operational decisions and secured the opportunity to stabilize and improve system performance. The impacts of transfer on quality of irrigation service are not yet assessable, though early of the system they manage beyond previous averages. And important issues of future sustainability remain. Still, in comparison with efforts in other countries, the early achievements of the ATP in Turkey show considerable promise for achieving objectives held bold by the government and by local associations.

Second-generation problems and challenges are already emerging in the wake of the early successes of this initiative. These can be categorized in terms of the party on which they have their primary effect. Challenges for DSI include (1) the difficulty in reducing overall staff levels in general, and O&M staff levels in particular, in the wake of transfer, (2) the absence of a charging mechanism for bulk water supply to IAs, and the consequent absence of an economic restraint on demands for water, and (3) the indistinct vision of a new role for the agency in supporting existing irrigation the post-transfer era.

Emerging problems for IAs include (1) the undefined nature of water rights in Turkey, and the consequent insecurity of their claim on irrigation water, (2) restricted options for obtaining heavy maintenance equipment, (3) the lack of a legal basis for forming federations of IAs for joint purchasing and supplying “lumpy” services such as equipment maintenance, (4) the de facto lack of a clear policy on capital cost sharing for rehabilitation (and new system construction), (5) the need to increase direct farmer participation in IA governance and reduce dependence on village and municipal leaders in filling IA leadership roles, and (6) weak support service systems for IAs in some areas and regions.

The flexible and pragmatic conduct of the transfer program to date, and the enthusiasm and capability apparent in many association leaders, offers reason for confidence that problems will be met and addressed. In some areas action is already underway. A World Bank loan currently being

(20)

appraised will help to ease the equipment constraint with subsidized purchase arrangements for IAs. The water rights situation, on the other land, presents a potential problem of major dimensions which will require upper-level action, and time, to remedy. Other constraints will require concerted action by DSI, IAs, and other organizations. The real danger is that of complacency, in which the government washes its hands of irrigation management entirely and fails to apprehend its ongoing role in monitoring and addressing emerging problems in the area of policy, finance, regulation, oversight, and supporting services.

The main benefit to the state from transfer is to remove the O&M financial burden from DSI and thus from the Government. Transfer of each ha of irrigated land to users substantially reduces the need for the government O&M expenditures and the related cost recovery.

Farmers' feeling a sense of ownership in transferred schemes has resulted in a better protection of the irrigation infrastructure which eventually leads to reduced maintenance and repair requirements.

Water User Organizations (WUOs) have generally demonstrated the ability to operate and maintain the systems satisfactorily through recruiting required staff, buying urgently needed transportation and communication equipment, assessing and collecting water fees, equipping their offices and substantially improving water delivery at cost generally less than that incurred by DSI.

In calculating the water requirements of crops, growing periods of crops should be followed very closely and water use programs are to be reorganized accordingly. In the irrigated area, water is overused. This problem related with management is farmers unwillingness toward night irrigation. Farmers traditionally have practised only day time irrigation. As a result of this practise, water in the irrigation channels is directly dumped to drain ways during night hours and approximately one-third of released water from the dam is wasted. Farmers should be trained on the optimum use of water.

The effficient coordination has to be established among related agencies to increase in the rate of irrigation. Some restrictions and criteria should be established on the amount of land and number of personnel to be employed in order to enhance productivity. Great importance should be given to the training of farmers. Especially, irrigated land should be prevented to use non-farm purposes.

(21)

References

DSI, (2000). Monitoring and evaluation report for transferred schemes.

Adana : DSI 6th Regional Directorate. Transfer Section (Turkish).

Svendsen, M., Trava, J. and Johnson Iii. S. H. (1997). Participatory Irrigation Management: Benefits and Second Generation Problems. Lessons from an International Workshop held at Centre International de Agricultural Tropical (CIAT) Cali, Colombia 9-15 February, 1997.

Svendsen, M, and Nott, G. (1998). Irrigation Management Transfer in Turkey: Process and Outcomes. Advanced Short Course on: Capacity Building for Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM). Valenzano, BA (Italy) 7-23 September 1998. PIM- Case Studies, v. 2 p. 59-60.

Tekinel, 0., Yazar, A. and Kanber, R., (1994). For an Efficient Water Resource Management Possibilities of Farmers' Participation in Operation and Maintenance of Irrigation Project in Turkey.

International Conference on Land and Water Resources Management in the Mediterranean Region v. 4. Bari,(Italy). 4-8 September 1994.

Tekinel, 0. (1999). Participatory Approach in Planning and Management of Irrigation Schemes. Advanced Short Course on Integrated Rural Water Management; Agricultural Water Demands. September 20- October 2, 1999, Adana, Turkey.

Unal, A. A., Ince, 0. and Sahin, L. (1998). Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) Activities in Turkey. Advanced Short Course on:

Capacity Building for Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM).

Valenzano, BA (Italy) 7-23 September 1998. PIM in the Mediterranean Countries, v. 3 p. 29-31.

Vermillion, D. L. (1997). Impact of Irrigation Management Transfer.

Research Report 11. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IIMI.